tv [untitled] July 28, 2011 12:00pm-12:30pm PDT
there is no reasonable argument that a court could find the protections that were concluded unenforceable. should take when it comes to protecting the rights of tenants. well perhaps some of us on the board and city government may be willing to take risks, at the end of the day when it comes to taking the risk, i will listen to the people off who ultimately have to live with the consequences of that risk, and i
would ask the city attorney's office whether or not there is a reasonable argument that the protections that were included in this development agreement are not enforceable. could someone make a reasonable argument of that? >> charles sullivan, city attorney's office. as you know, i have given extensive testimony in the board -- to the board on open in closed session on this issue. part of the difficulty results from the fact that we relied on two exemptions. the first one was the exemption under the state's 10-city bonus. there is no case law on that, and that is part of what we were advising you. there is a lot of reasons why we believe we fit within that exemption. there is the second exemption that came up later that we discussed, at that we found that
deals with replacement housing units built on the same property within five years. there is case law that actually supports that. at the end of the day, -- i do not know it is worth repeating, but all of these things are to make it enforceable, and also to provide that -- to require that the demolitions and relocation have been in advance before anybody -- and the unit is demolished. at the end of the day, we concluded there were strong arguments to support the enforceability of the rent control provisions. supervisor campos: again, i conceded that. the question is, is a reasonable argument on the other side? >> the only argument would be the cost of hawkins does not allow the city to impose rents on new units.
there is an exception, and we have told you about that and why we believe it applies here. supervisor campos: you are saying no accordance could provide these provisions are not enforceable? >> i cannot predict finally what any court would do. all i can do is give you the advice we of given you on this. supervisor campos: i think that is the problem. because we're talking about issues were some of these there are no legal precedents that say you can do some of the things you are doing at the end of the day, no one can provide the guarantee. while i appreciate that we have gone as far as we could possibly go, i actually think that at the end of the day we're still dealing with some risk, and again, while i understand there are strong arguments as to why the risk will not materialize, the fact remains that the risk
exists. i have yet to hear from any of the tenets advocates and the folks who came out in opposition to this project as to any feeling that their concerns have been addressed or they have been given the reassurance of having the protection, the level of protection that is needed. i always been the of what would you do if you had a family member in that situation, i would want as many protections as possible. president chiu, would you like to add anything? supervisor chu: sure, given those comments. i need to reiterate that the deputy city attorney in city attorney have stated over and over again that we have strong arguments that will prevail in court. one can think of all of the possible things that could
happen, but at the end of the day we had very strong arguments we believe will prevail. even if some of the arguments do not prevail, there are back of arguments. there are legal protections behind those. even of those do not prevail, we have a close to two wondered million-dollar fund to compensate tenants in the worst- case scenario. -- $200 million fund to compensate tenants in the worst- case scenario. the tenants who currently live in this space who will not have to move until they have a brand new unit they can move into what otherwise see their capital improvement cost passed on to them, the rent go up, and because you do not have a list act protections, it is very likely that this developer have done that you will have parcels sold off without any protections in your units that
have been in place for decades that are already deteriorating will likely be developed by others who will not be able to guarantee contract protections against the ellis act. we have discussed this before, and we have a difference of opinion. i need to say that these decisions are not easy, and the decisions we make here at the board we're not necessarily during for any reason other than what we'd think is in the best interests of san franciscans and the best interests of tenants. i think those of us that support the project truly believe well it may not be the public show -- politically popular thing to do, it is the right thing to do for the future of the residence. i ask that we amend the resolution as i proposed and move forward. supervisor campos: again, we do have a difference of opinion here and i give you in the folks
who have been working on this for trying to do as much as legally possible, and i think you have done that. it is just a question of is that enough? with that we have a motion. supervisor chu: if i could just ask, what would you have done differently? supervisor campos: one of the things that was suggested at one point was that we work with our state representatives to see if we could provide clarity in state law and actually have that be addressed to get that level of certainty before we actually move forward with the project. that is something that i think we could have considered, and i certainly was in favor of going that route. supervisor farrell, did you want to add to that? supervisor farrell: i would say that we agreed on the project,
and only thing i would say is that we do a lot of things here at the board and has a lot of laws and ordinance that do not have absolute guarantee that certainty. we do things -- some we agree with and some we object to, and that is fine, but to make a statement that we're only going to do things if it is one under 100% it is a bit of a fale standard compared to what we do on a a normal basis is a bit of an anomaly. we certainly have not done this in the past, and i personally have objected to a lot of things in the past for what has been really pushing the limits. i would say that i do think we've done a lot and have had a bac a lot of dialogue back and forth. some of us disagree, but we'll
we of done the best thing we possibly can. we have to take a look back and say what is in the best interest of the city? i do think in this case, obviously we're in thon the same page we have done that. supervisor campos: i appreciate that. i think you're right about that. i think that is not the standard we always follow, but the question was in the context of this case, what is the level of comfort for an individual supervisor? given the people involved, given the testimony from so many of the tenants, for me, i thought we needed more assurance, but i think you're right that that is not a standard that we follow. i think at the end of the day you have to make your judgment on each individual case, and that is where i was on this. so we have a motion by president chiu.
supervisor chu: is it better to say we disagree with the findings in refer to the second edition by this as embodied by the letter, or do we need to incorporate the text in the resolution? >> i do not want to step on the toes of the legislative analyst, but i think either purchased find. it is really your preference. >> i believe you can say and a corporate the findings. that has been done in prior years. supervisor chu: the specific amendment would be to disagree with the findings and incorporate the findings of the administration has embodied by office of work-force and economic developments letter of july 13, 2011. just a quick question on that, procedurally to we have to vote in each finding, or can we take
the boat collectively? -- vote collectively? >> also have to vote on the recommendation. supervisor campos: we have a motion by president chu. is your motion with respect to the findings only? supervisor chu: in disagreement with the findings for the reasons inc. and the summary that we have described, and then we report that we also disagree with the recommendation. supervisor campos: if we could have roll-call on that recommendation, please. and >> roll call on the motion. supervisor farrell? >> aye. >> supervisor chu? supervisor chu: let me read read the recommendation.
-- reread the recommendation. >> two in agreement, one in disagreement. supervisor campos: colleagues, any other thoughts or comments on this? again, i want to thinank everyone for coming out. with that, is there any other business before this committee? >> are no other items. supervisor campos: meeting adjourned.
i'm the president of friends of mclaren park. it is one of the oldest neighborhood community park groups in san francisco. i give a lot of tours through the park. during those tours, a lot of the folks in the group will think of the park as very scary. it has a lot of hills, there's a lot of dense groves. once you get towards the center of the park you really lose your orientation. you are very much in a remote area. there are a lot of trees that shield your view from the urban setting. you would simply see different groves that gives you a sense of freedom, of being outdoors, not being burdened by the worries of city life. john mclaren had said that golden gate park was too far away. he proposed that we have a park in the south end of the city. the campaign slogan was, people
need this open space. one of the things that had to open is there were a lot of people who did a homestead here, about 25 different families. their property had to be bought up. so it took from 1928 to 1957 to buy up all the parcels of land that ended up in this 317 acres. the park, as a general rule, is heavily used in the mornings and the evenings. one of the favorite places is up by the upper reservoir because dogs get to go swim. it's extremely popular. many fights in the city, as you know, about dogs in parks. we have 317 acres and god knows there's plenty of room for both of us. man and his best friend. early in the morning people before they go to work will walk their dogs or go on a jog themselves with their dogs.
joggers love the park, there's 7 miles of hiking trails and there's off trail paths that hikers can take. all the recreational areas are heavily used on weekends. we have the group picnic area which should accommodate 200 people, tennis courts are full. it also has 3 playground areas. the ampitheater was built in 1972. it was the home of the first blues festival. given the fact that jerry garcia used to play in this park, he was from this neighborhood, everybody knows his reputation. we thought what a great thing it would be to have an ampitheater named after jerry garcia. that is a name that has panache. it brings people from all over the bay area to the ampitheater. the calls that come in, we'd like to do a concert at the
jerry garcia ampitheater and we do everything we can to accommodate them and help them because it gets people into the park. people like a lot of color and that's what they call a park. other people don't. you have to try to reconcile all those different points of view. what should a park look like and what should it have? should it be manicured, should it be nice little cobblestones around all of the paths and like that. the biggest objective of course is getting people into the park to appreciate open space. whatever that's going to take to make them happy, to get them there, that's the main goal. if it takes a planter with flowers and stuff like that, fine. you know, so what? people need to get away from that urban rush and noise and this is a perfect place to do it. feedback is always amazement. they don't believe that it's in san francisco. we have visitors who will say, i never knew this was here and